Intentional Torts
Battery
1) A volitional act
2) Intended to cause:
- Contact with the person of another (single intent)
-Harmful/offensive contact with the person of another (dual intent)
3) it does cause harmful/offensive contact
Manufacturing defects
1) Products deviated from design
2) product left D's hands with defect
3) reached P and was expected to reach P in the same condition
4) D is in the bussy
5) Defect is factual/proximate cause
6) damages
Professional standard of care
standard of care applied to a learned professional is that conduct that the other ordinary members of the profession would engage in under same or similar circumstances
Respondeat superior
Vicarious liability: Employers are vicariously liable for the torts committed by their employees
False imprisonment
1) Actor intends to confine another
2) Actor's affirmative acts do confine P
3) P is aware of confinement/suffers damages
1) there is a design defect
2) product left D's hands with the defect
3) product reached and is expected to reach P in the same condition
4) D is in the bussy
5) defect is the factual/proximate cause
6) damages
But-For test
1) ID harm
2) ID Tortious conduct
3) engage in the counter factual and substitute non tortious conduct
- if the harm still would have occured, D is not the but for cause
Punitive damages factors
1) harm was physical or economic
2) conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard for the health and safety of others
3) Target of the conduct had financial vulnerability
4) Conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident
5) The harm was a result of intentional, malice, trickery, or deceit
Assault
1) A volitional act
2) intended to cause apprehension of imminent offensive or harmful contact
3) with the person of another
4) it does cause apprehension of imminent or harmful/offensive contact
Breach of express warranty
1) D made an affirmative representation about a product's quality/characteristic
2) Product did not comply with the representation
3) The representation was material/ P relied on it
4) The representation was the factual and proximate cause
5) damages
What does wagon-mound test
Foreseeablilty
Rowland land possessor duties
Land owner owes a duty of reasonable care to entrants on the land with regard to:
1) conduct by the land possessor that creates risks to entrants on the land
2) Artificial conditions on the land that pose a risk
3) Natural conditions on the land that pose a risk
Standard for Intentional infliction of emotional distress
Extreme or outrageous conduct
Breach of implied warranty of merchantability
1) P bought the product from D
2) D was in the Bussy
3) Product was not fit for its purpose
4) Failure was factual and proximate cause of the damage
5) Damages
Intervening superseding cause
An intervening act severs liability if they are:
1) Extraordinary under the circumstances
2) Not foreseeable in the normal course of events
3) Independent of or far removed from the defendant's conduct
Affirmative duties
1) voluntarily undertaken rescue
2) D non-negligently physically injured P or non-negligently placed P at risk of physical injury
3) Special relationships
Trespass to chattels
1) dispossessing
2) using/intermeddling with someone else's chattels
Only liable if:
- disspossesing
- deprived of use for a substantial period of time
- chattel is impaired in condition, quality, or value
- P suffers bodily injury/harm because they dont have the chattel
Malfunction Theory
Can infer a product defect when the incident that harmed P was:
1) A kind that ordinarily occurs as a result of a product defect and
2) It wasnt solely the result of causes other than product defect
Negligence Per Se
1) P is a member of class the statute is meant to protect
2) Harm is a kind statute is meant to protect against
3) Appropriate to impose liability
Rescue doctrine
To invoke the rescue doctrine, the plaintiff must show:
1) D's negligence created the peril in which the person in need of rescue found themselves
2) The peril was or appeared imminent
3) A reasonable person would have concluded the peril was imminent
4) The rescuer used reasonable care in conducting the rescue
Conversion + how it can be comitted
Intentional exercise of dominion over chattel so substantial you have to pay full value
Committed intentionally by:
Dispossessing
Destroying/altering
recieving
disposing of
misdelivering
refusing to surrender
Risk-Utility Test
GLEMAN
1) Gravity of the danger posed by the defect
2) Likelihood that the harm would occur
3) Economic viability of the alternate design
4) Mechanical feasibility of alternate design
5) Adverse consequences of alternate design
6) Nature/strength of consumer expectations
Res Ipsa Loquitor
1) event normally wouldnt occur in the absence of negligence
2) object/instrument of harm was under d's exclusive control
3) P's voluntary acts didnt cause/contribute to harm
Bystander recovery elements + case it comes from
Thing v. LaChusa
1) P is closely related to the victim
2) P is at the scene of the injury producing event and is aware it is causing injury to the victim
3) P suffers emotional distress beyond that of a disinterested person
Trespass
1) D enters the land of another/causes a third party/ object to enter the land of another
2) Remains on the land
3) Fails to remove something from the land they have a duty to
when a design is supposed to be dangerous, it is not a defect, it is ________
Unavoidably unsafe
Harm within the risks test
1) Consider the moment of D's negligent conduct
2) Determine what risks the D's negligence created or increased
3) Determine whether P's harms resulted from one of those risks
Negligent infliction of emotional distress
1) D's negligent act put D at risk of physical harm
2) P was in the zone of danger
3) P was in fear of immediate physical harm
4) Fear manifests physically (Substantial bodily injury or sickness)